The most incoherent thing ever.

So I made a video (click me to watch video) about this post + more of what this dude said. I also said I would just put what he said on my blog, Then I also said I would say in my blog about how in the video I said I would do that and then run into an infinite loop since I'm talking about the fact that I am going to write in the blog the video about the blog that I just now am writing into the blog and oh no infinite loop AHHH!! Anyway so I did that just like I said I would. Now for the incoherent thing. Oh yes.

So incoherent. My brain. I said all I can say in my video (click) so yeah.

Anyway here it is: 

Light Before The Tunnel writes:

Yes, that's correct. It does often happen to career scientists. That does not mean I'm speaking about you personally, but its just something to be aware of.

don't know anything about you. Perhaps you are one of the scientists who do understand how to avoid scientism. But what I DO know is that scientism is much more common among scientists than most of them realize. So, if you are aware of how to avoid scientism it would still be something to watch out for among other scientists, peer-review, and the consensus... as scientism plays a role in all of them. The reason why it's possible for scientists to adhere to the philosophy of scientism (or commit individual fallacies of scientism) is because it results from a lack of awareness of either the limitations of the scientific method (or the accidental conflation of non-scientific claims with scientific claims) For example, consider what would happen if someone were to present scientific research that conflicts with Heliocentrism, for example. Do you think that research would have ANY chance of being accepted for peer-review? It would not, no matter how strong the evidence is. This is because of one of the various manifestations of scientism. Many scientists think they fully understand what scientism is just because they understand ONE manifestation of it. But scientism manifests in many ways, such as: 1. The irrational dogmatic behavior toward certain consensus theories they've accepted as a given their whole lives. 2. The conflation of non-scientific claims with scientific claims. For example, it's literally impossible to think of Evolution Theory as a scientific theory without commiting fallacies of scientism. It's possible to BELIEVE Evolution Theory is true without scientism, but anyone thinking it's actually a scientific theory as opposed to a philosophical position (informed by science) IS commiting fallacies of scientism by default. Belief in Creationism requires faith in the following unobserved process: 1. Presuppostion that a Non-Naturalistic process for life coming from non-life exists & already occurred. Belief in Evolutionism requires faith in the following unobserved processes: 1. Information being added to the genome 2. Increasing genetic complexity 3. The primary definition of Macro-evolution (not the secondary definition "speciation" which both sides agree is real) 4. Evolution Theory also relies on the presupposition that a Naturalistic process by which life comes from non-life exists and already occurred, despite no observations of this either. All existing scientific evidence could be interpreted to support either side: 1. A common designer, or 2. A common ancestor So what scientific or logical reason does anyone have to choose Evolutionism over Creationism? It requires faith in more processes which haven't been scientifically verified / observed. Occam's razor is the problem-solving principle that "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity". It is generally understood in the sense that with competing theories or explanations, the simpler one, for example a model with fewer parameters, is to be preferred. So why are many choosing the explanation which requires faith in more unobserved processes when it isn't necessary? That's not the scientific or logical approach. The answer is: Scientism They're believing that whatever claims are within the current consensus of academia are automatically scientific claims. It doesn't work that way. The Methodological Naturalism requirement allows them to include their best Naturalistic explanation for questions they can't answer with observation. “Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer (or Creationism), such a hypothesis is excluded from peer-review because it is not naturalistic. Of course the scientist, as an individual, is free to embrace a reality that transcends naturalism." - Dr. Scott Todd, immunologist from Kansas State University as printed in Nature Magazine So, in effect, Scientism is causing them to blindly believe mainstream academia's consensus like a religious text without properly understanding the only reason Creationism is excluded is due to pre-existing philosophical bias, NOT because it's less scientific. Pre-existing bias is a systematic error in the scientific method. They can't even prove Naturalism is a true philosophy.

Antifa

Read this:- (click)

My thoughts:

I've been against antifa broadly speaking since learning what it DOES - that is - the actions of those that call the group they belong to "antifa" they destroyed both private property and public property, attacked people who they THOUGHT were (X) and did other crimes that - to my horror, many news outlets underplayed. After reading this  - its clear that its a manifesto - just with better language then some - perhaps more dangerous because it seems so well thought out and so darn intellectual - but its strong in its terms - right off the bat -

“Fascism is not to be debated, it is to be destroyed!” - and there you have it - that is to be taken seriously - don't debate this thing, don't try to reason with whomever MIGHT be thinking this, etc - just destroy it. Outright. No need for argument, logic, reason, negotiation, just blast it, kill it, nuke it, destroy it asunder, make it gone. white-supremacists are brought up A LOT here- and I just can't help but ask - who the bleep are you talking about? The KKK? They are dying out if this is correct: (click)

Also - what is missing is - HOW TO IDENTIFY KKK/Fascist members. How do you do that book? Hello? System needed. I need to know how I know who to destroy. No? Okay.... well I guess its just whoever. Remember the whole "punch a Nazi" thing? Yeah that is still around. People still think its OKAY to punch whomever you might THINK is a Nazi.

Unless that person is punching me, someone else,  then no - but thanks to ideology driven tactics - some come to BELIEVE that punching a Nazi is RIGHT. I ask, aren't the Nazi's like - gone? So , way back when they had some members etc - (click) - so  United States (3,500) - that's it?! 

Anyway but I'm sure the white supremist groups that are not kkk are everywhere right? Well its. .... the number is... hmm. Google seems to not be finding a number per-say... uhh. Well. Anyway so anyone who is white I guess might be a white supremist. Who is a fascist though? IDK anyone who does things you don't like I guess.

~~

A solution to the problem - lets assume there are fascists and also white supremist (and those that might be both)

Lets also assume they are being peaceful.

The answer?

Reason, logic, negotiation first. Foremost.

But, the real answer might be emotion: Love. (click)

if one man can do that- one person. How many could be deconverted if more tried?

Using love this brave man was able to deconvert them.

Not force. Not destruction. But peace. Peace works, use it.

Perhaps love can overcome the other issues as well - might be worth a try. Destruction should be the LAST resort - not the first, not the go to quote.

I'm a man who desires peace. Yet, I know there are those who do not, the desire of power - of belonging, of group identity, group think, these are strong motivators. We must always be willing to question what we hold most dear.

I see little to nothing in the Antifi booklet that suggests questioning anything it promotes.

Yikes.

In conclusion, they offer no empirical evidence, no tests, and no valid and sound argument - so we must be skeptical of there conclusions.

How using logic ended my interaction with someone.

Several years ago I had encountered a person on youtube, as you do from time to time, who had written some things that were right up my alley of skeptical thoughts and something that I wanted to promote. I had read the ideas and found no logical fallacies and thought it would be quite good to share this writing with others.

I wanted to have this person talk on my channel about the writings and ideas. They were not quite ready to do so, but we stayed in contact. The writings became a book that I got. I was waiting for them to be ready - and a friend of mine expressed wanting a copy of the book, so I asked the writer about getting a copy.

This is when the person informed me that they were going into hiding.

This of course, is strange. People do not go into hiding as a normal thing. What could be the cause of this?

So I asked.

The answer was that Trump is a narcissist and was going to try to become a tyrant, that his followers would target people that wrote books like this, and that person was afraid for their life.

Now, this seemed rather - to put it mildly - strange. So I did what I always do when someone makes claims. I asked critical questions. Lots of them.

How do you know (X)? What proof is there for (Z)? What makes you think that anyone could find you?

Good, critical questions. Or so I thought.

They reacted... badly.

"Trump is a criminal."

"If he stays in office we are all fucked." 

"He is driving the country towards nationalism."

So, even more claims.

Of course, I asked how they knew any of this was true, and that even if it was true - how any of that proved that people were going to go after people that wrote books like this.

That never got an answer.

Silence.

Then - they returned. I was glad, and tried to reach out to talk to them - to get them to come on and talk about the book and...

"I asked you not to contact me again (meaning personal email or phone) unless you were going to discuss the narcissism of Trump"

I've checked and rechecked my email - no they never wrote that. I again tried my best to explain that it is not about Trump. Never was. It was and is about how we decide what is or is not true - the epistemology. 

Didn't matter. Person said not to contact them again.

So logic lead to an end to the interaction.

What went wrong?

Well, I speculate that it seems to the person that I am not on the right side - that I am disagreeing with them because I am asking questions, that I'm on "the other side" or something like that. Not with us - you against us. This happens sometimes.

The topic (X) does not matter. Not even a little. What matters is the logic, always. Anyone makes a claim, that person must support that claim. That is how it works. You can not just say something is true without proof of some sort, more so when your conclusions are leading to a choice that is not normal.

Now, had person not been going into hiding, I would not have asked any questions about the statements at all. It was only because I was worried about them doing that - and also not having the book be something that can be had by the public for (as far as I knew forever) that worried me. Thus my goal was to get person to see the lack of reasoning they had.

Clearly, I was not able to do that.

Cognitive dissonance in action.

It can be anything.

For many its God beliefs.

For some its religion.

For others its politics.

Orangeman bad, agree with me!

Well - guess what? You're going to get the same treatment as everyone else making a claim.

When its your pet claim. When its something you believe is true. When its your cherished idea is when you react. You become unhinged, you lose logic. This happened before within the realm of political things here (click)

Its okay when the skeptic is asking critical questions about all the other topics - but not that one! THAT TOPIC... oh no don't ya dare... Its happened before, it will happen again I'm sure.

What can you do?

Always be willing to question everything, and more so the things you hold most dear.

In other words: Be skeptical.

Dear Theists,

 Greetings my dear theist, it has come to my attention over the years, that as a group of people you keep on doing things, things that really, really are annoying and bothersome to me, and other non-theist types. This is a letter to plead with you to stop doing these things. Thank you for your attention, I shall begin.

1: Stop assuming you know what I believe, what I think, and/or how I feel.

Examples I've gotten over time include but are not limited to:

"You think the universe came from nothing!"

"You believe that life came from nothing!"

"You think life came from rocks!"

"Naturalism is incoherent! Materialists are always wrong!"

"You just want to sin."

"You hate god."

"Your angry at god."

"You are a Satanist."

"You are doing the devils work."

----

2: Attack the argument, not the person.

Examples I've gotten over time include but are not limited to:

"Your a...(X)"

(X) has been moron, idiot, retard, ugly, drunk, among others.

You have a slur in speech/lisp/ and you can't spell!

And every other insult you can think of, and some you can't.

More great examples here (click)

---

Thank you for not doing these things anymore dear theist. I'm sure that my blog post has enabled you to no longer do these things.

All lives matter.

All lives matter.

I do not believe in "black lives" because life has all the colors in it, and of it, and no colors as well - life is far more then tone of skin. This was never about racism, BLM was always about control & money. It was never about justice, it was always about dividing us up. We humans are all the same race. It was never about fixing problems - it was always about making the problems worse. Defund police? What are you crazy? How about reshape the police training, have more community interaction with the police? How about celebrate them for the hero's they are? How about the media stops trying to get a few more clicks out of us and reports upon reality, the good as well as the bad? Maybe MORE good needs to be shown for a change? How about fixing the system - as that will benefit us all. We see it time and time again - whenever programs are made that do not help all - people suffer. Look at homeless shelters - if you are a woman with kids - no problem - they have room for you, but not the guy - he must go over there. If you are a guy with kids the homeless shelter has no room for that - only moms with kids apply. If you are black you get to apply for a college fund that exists solely for you. So many programs that only help you out if you are (X)(Y) or (Z) that drains from the programs that are for all. To many programs - so that no one knows what program to support with funds, making the programs overall weaker and less able to help. Cut offs in programs just when you make enough money to almost reach the stable place - so that you must not make enough money, programs that pay money per kid you have, rather then help you to become an adult with life skills. A dark cloud hangs over the head of people that come out of jail, finding work or a place to live is hard, or impossible - making crime the only life they can live. Registration of people because of what crime they did - something that marks them forever and doesn't fix anything and only can (and does) harm the people that served time. Jails are pointless time outs for adults, where no rehab takes place, where nothing is done, where gangs form and interpersonal relationship drama becomes all consuming, because there is nothing else to do. This doesn't serve anyone. We need to rethink prison in full. Hell, maybe we need to rethink what "justice" is or means - jail has become the answer to every problem. We need zero mandatory sentences so that judges can come up with unique sentencing rather then fines or jail. Restructure things to make bloody sense. Heck it took years but they are starting to see the scientific data on how to do proper integration interviews now - going with a concerned approach - a friendly hand - and NO LYING - but still if you talk to them you might wind up in bigger trouble then if not, and this is backwards - you should be rewarded for telling the truth, not punished for it. Get rid of CPS - that evil vile system that helps NO ONE. Oh my word - so many things that we could really work on together to change for the better, but no - lets fight over our skin color! Lets segregate because being around people not like me is SO HARD. Lets make fake news and click bate! YEAH MONEY! WOO. Hashtag it up. Yelp it out, whatever. Yeah your part of a "movement" by hashtag! Oh you changed your icon to be rainbows how fucking enlightened of you! Oh yes, please tell me your gender pronouns THAT WILL SOLVE THINGS. Ah well. I can only complain about such matters on my tiny platform - upon my tiny soap box. Holding the sign that doomsday doesn't have to be a thing... if only we can see that all lives matter. Ah well.

The 4400 (2004) vs 4400 (2021)

So long ago, Another life

I could feel your heart beat

It's not a dream, remember us

I can see it in your eyes

We'll find a place in time

A place in time beyond the sun

We'll find a place in time

A place in time to call our home.

~10/28/2021~

2004 a show called "The 4400" aired, it was a mix of sci-fi and mystery. The plot was that 4400 people had suddenly appeared - people from all times and places on earth, thought to be dead, missing, lost - and also they had super powers, well - some of them did. 

Mostly it was a charter driven show, people trying to connect/reconnect with each other, with the mystery - was this aliens? The first season ended with a cliff hanger, making us think that - yes - it was aliens.

It uh, it wasn't. It was time travel. This was us, from the future. Okay... sure but what was the source of the superpowers? When did this happen, why these people? That question sort of got pushed to the side as season 2-4 were about interducing a drug that caused people to gain super powers - or die. 50/50 chance either you took the drug, and died, or you took it, and gained super powers. We really never got a clear answer to as when/how/why these 4400 were chosen at some nebulous point in the future, just that now, half the city had taken the drug and died and the other half had super powers. 

Season one was simply the best, and it went down hill - it was kind of clear that the writers didn't know where this was going, and by the time s4 rolled out and it was about the drug, the show had ended, canceled. For me, I enjoyed it, the music in the intro really got you ready for a ride. It was a good sstory, not great - that had some sci-fi ideas, some super-hero types, but in the end it was about people.

Well, we are clearly out of original stories and ideas - so hey, time to reboot this, at least Hero's when it came back did so with cast from the original. This is a full reboot. Same idea... well.....

Here are the two descriptions of the TV show:

(2004)

"4400 centers on the return of 4400 people who, previously presumed dead or reported missing, reappear on Earth. Though they have not aged physically, some of them seem to have deeper alterations ranging from superhuman strength to an unexplained healing touch. A government agency is formed to track the 4400 people after one of them commits a murder."

(2021)

"4400 overlooked, undervalued, or otherwise marginalized people who vanished without a trace over the last hundred years are all returned in an instant, having not aged a day and with no memory of what happened to them. As the government races to analyze the potential threat and contain the story, the 4400 themselves must grapple with the fact that they've been returned with a few…upgrades, and the increasing likelihood that they were all brought back now for a specific reason."

Oh. So.

We going woke then?

Are we? I mean, lets give it a chance. Maybe I'm over-reacting to it. So I watched the first episode.

...

.....

SIGH.

They are really pushing hard to make this some sort of commentary about race right from the get go. We have charters from the 50s saying how they protested and such and thought that it would be "much better then this" and "it feels the same way" - we have the cops who are acting like jerks for the most part, threating violence, being bullies, we have the preacher give a speech that might as well be Malcom X or Marten Luther King Jr. giving a speech to calm people down. 

Yay. Other then that - is it GOOD? Well, I cringed at the efforts of trying ever so hard to make us aware that they are facing injustice - that even the woman cop who is black is part of the problem because she is on the side of "the system" - sigh. Why? I don't know. Okay, over looking ALL THAT - I kinda like some of the people we were introduced to, we have a healer we have someone that can move objects with there mind, and we have a nice ending cliff hanger that made me want to see what happens next.

And... I will - I'll give it one more episode to prove itself before moving on, because maybe they just did this for the pilot, maybe it will not be lame and broke and boring and woke.

....and maybe lobsters will learn to fly. I'll update this post when I've seen episode two rather then make a new blog post just for it - so whatever follows is from THE FUTURE! 

------

11/2/21

Episode 2 continues to push the idea that the cops are overbearing and that the system is unfair, but does pull back on the overtones that ep1 set forth. Perhaps, maybe, I was quick to judge this. They are developing the charters into people we care about, at least - so there is that.

So, this era of more "woke" - well what is that word anyway? I'm not sure, its part of the new lexicon that I am trying to understand - everything about the "woke" is race related - or sex related, its a changing of who a person is to the color of the skin - it says its about equality, but its not. Going "woke" is something that happens to comics, series, anything - its when they make a charter suddenly be gay - then write the story around that, rather then making the charter be good then that they happen to be gay - its an agenda to push "identity politics" - you are just that one aspect - you are a victim - that sort of thing. Its the bi-sexual Superman (who is actually Superman's kid why not call him Superman Jr.? Also he looks just like Superman). The problem is NOT that the charter is bisexual - its that its a sudden change from what always was - Thor was always a guy, now he is going to be a girl. Why? Give them a new name then! Ah whatever comics. Its the "hey look you got a gay person!" - like so? This is what is known as virtue signaling - its a token "representation" - there is this idea that everyone needs to see "someone like them" in the media, movies, comic, etc. Okay, but - where is the wheelchair bound superhero then? Where is the not super attractive person?

Its not about having one of every sort of human on screen or in a comic - that is obvious to me at least - so what IS the agenda - if indeed there is any agenda? Its unclear. However the "woke" shows/comics tend to not be any good - and you can tell, (Ghostbuster 2006 reboot is an example of the "woke" movie).

So - is THIS show woke? I don't know. Its to well written so far. Why have it be "all" minorities? I have no idea - the original cast had more diversity then this - so if anything this is less of a woke because, for some they will not see themselves on screen.

So I complained about something that, in the end I find to be something worth watching - it might turn me off at some point, but it gets the pass for now. Perhaps complaining online is me yelling into the void.

However, I'm not going to not complain.

The No True Christian Song!

Oh yes there are lots of ways to deny someone's history when it comes to Christianity 

We will start the trip by taking this slip of bible passages that seem to suggest you were never best buds with Jesus our Lord!

Oh in Matt 15:8 its so damn great cuss its a statement about you! Sure you might have prayed and might have stayed an extra day or two at church - but remember honoring with lips, your heart is far so far away from me - that is what he be - thus sure you might have prayed but you didn't love him that day so you never did stay with Jesus anyway!

Its almost as good as Isaiah 29:13 - that says sort of the same but adds to the frame that your worship was also so lame!

Now let me reflect upon James 1:26 just for some kicks as this could be used on some Jesus lover dudes who I know are just to rude for it says that if your tongue is bad then you have been had because your just a cad and for you Jesus is just a fad!

Oh yes there are many ways to deny someone was a Christian- this is important to understand so you can wave your hands to wave away cogitate disarray!

First John, not the second one but the very first one says in 2 colon 9 if you hate the other believer then you are not in the light it says nothing about hating non believers so that might be alright!

Titus! TIT IS! No I mean... Tides are us. Wait no. Anyway, TITUS 1:16 says your faith is just a dream if your works show you unclean so if what you do is not about Jesus then you are just a man and not a follower then!

Back to the first John again, cuss boy oh man he had a lot to say if you don't do what your told to do by God above then oh boy, your going below, so long bye bye bro, your telling a lie so I guess go and die, but that is just the thing he said in 2:4! 

Hold on to your cat first Johns at it again, 3 and 6 basically says that if you keep on sinn` then you didn't know him, so I guess no one is a real Christian!

OH MY WORD FIRST JOHN WHY 3 - 8 THOUGH 10 Its a long passage about how you are not a true Jesus follower dude, it goes on and on to say, all the ways you could fail today, or yesterday to and boo-hoo-hoo, sucks to be you!

Anyway there is more but its kinda a bore let me skip right past Luke and the Corin as well, screw that dude John and Matt can go too just what do you do when you look at who is who all throughout the bible there are ways to figure out who is not a REAL CHRISTAN DUDE.

But of course none of that applies to me - no none of that applies to me, because no matter what I'll say in my brain till I go insane that I'm a follower not lame like you are!

Ha ha ha you never were a real Christian!

Oh yes. Oh yes. Now that I think back. To all of that. I cross my arms and say:

Well I guess you didn't care about logical fallacies anyway - the no true Scotsman - just apparently was not something that whoever wrote the bible understands.

But what else do you expect from a guy who said not to bother washing hands? 

That happened in Mark Seven!

And ~fin~!